On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Any textual basis for that claim? > > Constitution, 4.1.5.3 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority > > for its supersession."
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 04:59:09AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Yes, and? We could make the logo require a 3:1 majority to be superseded > too, but that wouldn't mean we'd have to change our behaviour in any way, > except that we couldn't change the logo as easily... I'm not sure that we could make the logo a foundation document without changing the constitution. The logo doesn't represent any rules that I'm aware of. I certainly don't see the relevance of this paragraph. > There's "goals of the project" (which could be met at some point in > the future rather than right now), there's "nontechnical policies" > (which can presumably have exceptions like all the other policies > we've got), there's "position statements about issues of the day" > (which don't seem to require any particular force on the project), > but no indication which of these the social contract is. And there's > "critical to the Project's mission and purposes", which doesn't really > say much of anything at all. And that's about it... "critical to the Project's mission and purposes" describes the constitution, the DFSG and the social contract -- at least right now. I'm not sure in what way you think that "critical to the Project's mission and purposes" is not descriptive. > I can't see a constitutional basis for requiring us to uphold the social > contract in any particular fashion, so if you want to dismiss options > because they're not compatible with a reading of the social contract, > you seem to need a better reason than just "we can't do that". I'm really not getting your point. You already quoted 2.1.1, which pretty much says "we shouldn't do that". -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
